The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #111033   Message #2343914
Posted By: GUEST,Tom Bliss
18-May-08 - 06:11 PM
Thread Name: Money v Folk
Subject: RE: Money v Folk
I think Jim that we have a different idea of what a definition is for.

Certainly if you are, for example, an academic or a legislator looking for specific, verifiable definitions, then something like the 54 is necessary. I'm not sure what the PRS line on this is, but it's certainly true that their definition of 'traditional' has nothing to do with the 54. They tell me the word is synonymous with 'anon' and 'in public ownership' - which just means the writer has been dead for more than 70 years, or can be assumed so. And no more - certainly nothing about "variation which springs from the creative impulse of the individual or the group" for example.

I guess I'm assuming that the 54 was an academic exercise, designed to help those who wanted to study the music to isolate one specific genre - and as such I'm sure it did the job admirably.

But I'm not an academic. I'm a businessmen, and I'm interested in exciting people in, in descending order; a) 'real' live music, b) music with both story and history c) music that connects with their local culture. This is mainly for personal reasons, but I row the bigger boat whenever can too.

Like anyone involved in marketing I have to start with what my listener knows. If the very first thing I do is lecture them on the precise derivation of the music I'm presenting, and how it connects or doesn't with another genre, I'm going to loose them before I've started.

So I use with the second definition - as do the vast majority of people involved in things called, by them, 'folk.'

The issue here is what the people who used the word when writing on this thread meant by it.

It's clear to me that a good few of the 'no-money' camp were meaning the 54, and that most of us 'don't be so silly' camp were meaning the Wikepedia - and that should have been obvious from what we said. The influence of people like Carolan goes without saying within the Wiki definition.

Hmmm - I don't think I'm being patronising in suggesting that we're unlikely to persuade 90% of the population of the English speaking world to change their understanding of the meaning of word 'folk' now. Or to find a new one for that thing. Just realistic. The genie's been out of the bottle for 40 years, Jim! Far better to go with the flow and find a new word to describe the 54 definition - and 'Traditional' seems to be doing quite a resoanable job - for now, so why not just use that?

Because it's not a matter of 'disprov[ing] the old definition' - just resolving two conflicting uses of the same word.

The 54 still defines something very important - which has not changed. It's only the WORD used at the FRONT of the equasion that's changed. Not the definition itself.

Another example:

To a TV engineer 'red' is one very specific hue. To everyone else it includes cerise, and scarlet and crimson, and pillar box, and cherry and lots of other shades. But the TV engineer knows that if he sets the cameras to record crimson, the pictures will be unusable, so he retains the correct kelvin temperature as his definition for 'true' primary red (at work anyway). But he also understands that when his wife says she's wearing red lipstick it's very unlikely to be the primary colour.

Does that make any sense?

I'm not sure what this sentence means:

"Surely if you are an official in a responsible position on the issue of copyright it is your duty to tell it as it is, not how you/they would prefer it to be."

I'm not an official - is that what you thought? But absolutely they should tell it like it is! I'm only telling it as I understand it to be - as no more than a writer-member of PRS with an active interest in improving various aspects of their operations around foolk (new word to avoid argument - the bigger term)!

As for copyright, there are effectively three states. 1) Copyright, 2) out-of copyright and 3) shared copyright, where protection only relates to individual use.

I missed your challenge I'm afraid in my rush to correct to another post. I use the word 'folk' to descibe what I do ONLY because the vast majority of other people do so. I would never call my stuff traditional, and as I'm sure people who've been to my gigs will verify I do try to at least give the gist of the argument and explain the difference between what I do and the 'real thing.'

'Folk' is the easy option, yes - but I do sing real folk songs, and I participate in real folk gatherings too, so it's not cut and dried, and in the absence of another word I have little option.

It wasn't me that decided the word had changed it's meaning. Bigger boys did it, and then told me it was ok to use a bad word.

I'm not sure how having me relinquish my rights would prove anything. Perhaps when I'm not quite so desperate to pay the bills I might (though not till after Dickie Attenborough has categorically turned down my offer to use Spirit of Ecstasy in his new film)!

But the point is, Jim we are innocently making cerise and pink and crimson here. We're not doing anything bad. We're not spoiling the primary red, or passing our stuff off as the primary colour. We'd just using the WORD red - and ONLY because it's common practice - the normal correct use of language - to do so.

I'll make no comment about Kennedy, though I've read much about him here.

The PRS collection and reporting system is not perfect, but it's a reasonable first stab at a workable solution in a very very complex situation. That said, you can drive coach and horses though some areas (including the "copyrighted music 'might' be played during the course of the evening" issue) which is why I'm still agitating for change - but that's a thread all on its own.

Tom